In accordance with industry accepted best practices we ask that users limit their copy / paste of copyrighted material to the relevant portions of the article you wish to discuss and no more than 50% of the source material, provide a link back to the original article and provide your original comments / criticism in your post with the article.

Original Message

This is fucked! These people are forcing what they assume about historical figures to be written in as fact! They are demented and damaging books that are supposed to be based on factual information.. not what a bunch of retards "think"..

Nevermind the fact, when did historical figures sexuality become a necessity to be mentioned in these books?

I love how the article states "we’re not saying there’s an agenda", when there obviously is one.

Read the whole article

=====================================================

California Parents Barred from Opting Kids Out of Mandatory LGBT-Inclusive Textbooks - And still, the Democratic Party claims to be the party of “choice.”

California has become the first state in the union to mandate the use of LGBT-inclusive textbooks in elementary schools and have given parents no way to opt out. The choice has been made for them. It’s the law.

That law requires a “fair, accurate, inclusive, and respectful” treatment of homosexual, bisexual, transgender, and lesbian Americans despite the historical insignificance.

“We’re not trying to make anybody gay; we’re not saying there’s an agenda; we’re not saying that these people are better than other people; what we’re saying is this is another group of Americans and they face certain prejudices,” said state publisher Mark Jarrett, whose history textbooks include special mention of the sexual preferences of historical figures like Jane Adams, Emily Dickinson, Nathaniel Hawthorne, President James Buchanan, though it’s inconclusive if these prominent Americans were gay or not.

“I think we should say, ‘Buchanan, he never married. He had a very good friend who was living with him. He may have been gay,'” Jarrett added. “On the other hand, at that time, being gay was seen as something evil and wrong.”